Editor’s Note: Ebrahim Meraji is a veteran Iranian analyst of international relations, with a specialty in Middle East politics and U.S. foreign policy. An astute observer of U.S.-Iran relations, Meraji has taught at the university level and directed influential programs at think tanks in Iran. This is his first piece for Stimson.
By Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow, Middle East Perspectives
Based on historical experience, theoretical frameworks, and current information, Donald Trump’s second term has the potential to be more pragmatic and effective than his first.
During his first term, Trump was critical of traditional U.S. domestic and foreign policy approaches, attempting to set himself apart from previous presidents. Many within the U.S. establishment viewed his presidency as an anomaly and expected the country to eventually return to its conventional, bureaucratic path. Even influential members of the Republican Party, as well as Democrats and the courts, sought to restrain his actions.
When Joe Biden assumed office, it was widely believed that the “Trump era” had ended, signaling a return to normalcy. However, the results of the 2024 presidential election revealed that Trump’s influence and his unconventional approach to politics resonate deeply within American society.
Trump’s first-term foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, demonstrated a preference for resolving issues through personal relationships. He emphasized direct, unmediated contact with Middle Eastern leaders, positioning himself as a transformative figure akin to Ronald Reagan, who is credited with paving the way for the end of the Cold War. Trump even revived Reagan’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” underscoring his desire to reshape U.S. global leadership.
The Authoritarian Culture of the Middle East
Trump’s approach could prove more effective than Biden’s in the context of the region’s prevailing political culture, which is predominantly authoritarian. This tendency persists even among leaders who have received Western education. For instance, Bashar al-Assad, the recently deposed leader of Syria, studied ophthalmology in London but embraced authoritarian tendencies when he succeeded his late father as ruler in Damascus.
Other leaders in the region, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, as well as the Afghan Taliban, share a governance style rooted in authoritarianism. Relationships between these leaders are often shaped by personal and emotional dynamics rather than institutional or national interests. Consequently, religious, ethnic, racial, and linguistic identities play a significant role in determining proximity and hostility among nations.
Here, Trump’s personal approach to politics may align well with the tendencies of Middle Eastern leaders, potentially enabling more effective U.S. policies during his presidency. By prioritizing economic interests and influence over promoting human rights or civil liberties, Trump also mirrors the strategies toward the region pursued by China in recent years. His apparent indifference to incidents like the Saudi killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi reflects this pragmatic approach.
With Trump re-elected and wielding greater political influence, U.S. foreign policy is expected to become even more personality-driven. Initiatives such as expanding the Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries, and securing Saudi Arabia’s accession to these agreements will likely hinge on Trump’s personal relationships with regional leaders. Since Iranian officials, at times, had better relations with Republicans, the likelihood of Iran’s inclination to reach a deal with Trump becomes stronger.
The relationship between the United States and Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has been characterized by hostility, with both sides, at best, managing to control tensions. Both have concluded that failing to do so would be too costly. This is particularly important for someone like Trump, who has stated that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a priority for him. From Iran’s perspective, too, there appear to be logical reasons for seeking an agreement. The government under President Masoud Pezeshkian has adopted a more flexible approach, and the regional security situation, along with economic sanctions, has made efforts to reach an agreement more serious.
Tehran is concerned that any agreement may not be as stable as previous ones. However, given the election of Trump-supporting majorities in Congress, any accord negotiated by the Trump administration is likely to face less opposition within the U.S. political structure. However, Israel’s unwillingness to reach any deal with Iran, coupled with Trump’s previous order to kill an Iranian general, represent major obstacles to a potential agreement. It remains to be seen what path the parties will ultimately take to manage these tensions.
In summary, Trump’s second term could bring a more targeted and pragmatic approach to the Middle East, leveraging his alignment with the region’s authoritarian political culture to advance U.S. interests.
Ebrahim Meraji is director of the Department of US-Middle East Studies at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies (CMESS) and director of the U.S. Studies Group at the Iranian Association of West Asian Studies (IAWAS).
An Optimistic View of Trump’s Second Presidency From an Expert in Iran
By Ebrahim Meraji
Middle East & North Africa
Editor’s Note: Ebrahim Meraji is a veteran Iranian analyst of international relations, with a specialty in Middle East politics and U.S. foreign policy. An astute observer of U.S.-Iran relations, Meraji has taught at the university level and directed influential programs at think tanks in Iran. This is his first piece for Stimson.
By Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow, Middle East Perspectives
Based on historical experience, theoretical frameworks, and current information, Donald Trump’s second term has the potential to be more pragmatic and effective than his first.
During his first term, Trump was critical of traditional U.S. domestic and foreign policy approaches, attempting to set himself apart from previous presidents. Many within the U.S. establishment viewed his presidency as an anomaly and expected the country to eventually return to its conventional, bureaucratic path. Even influential members of the Republican Party, as well as Democrats and the courts, sought to restrain his actions.
When Joe Biden assumed office, it was widely believed that the “Trump era” had ended, signaling a return to normalcy. However, the results of the 2024 presidential election revealed that Trump’s influence and his unconventional approach to politics resonate deeply within American society.
Trump’s first-term foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, demonstrated a preference for resolving issues through personal relationships. He emphasized direct, unmediated contact with Middle Eastern leaders, positioning himself as a transformative figure akin to Ronald Reagan, who is credited with paving the way for the end of the Cold War. Trump even revived Reagan’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” underscoring his desire to reshape U.S. global leadership.
The Authoritarian Culture of the Middle East
Trump’s approach could prove more effective than Biden’s in the context of the region’s prevailing political culture, which is predominantly authoritarian. This tendency persists even among leaders who have received Western education. For instance, Bashar al-Assad, the recently deposed leader of Syria, studied ophthalmology in London but embraced authoritarian tendencies when he succeeded his late father as ruler in Damascus.
Other leaders in the region, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, as well as the Afghan Taliban, share a governance style rooted in authoritarianism. Relationships between these leaders are often shaped by personal and emotional dynamics rather than institutional or national interests. Consequently, religious, ethnic, racial, and linguistic identities play a significant role in determining proximity and hostility among nations.
Here, Trump’s personal approach to politics may align well with the tendencies of Middle Eastern leaders, potentially enabling more effective U.S. policies during his presidency. By prioritizing economic interests and influence over promoting human rights or civil liberties, Trump also mirrors the strategies toward the region pursued by China in recent years. His apparent indifference to incidents like the Saudi killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi reflects this pragmatic approach.
With Trump re-elected and wielding greater political influence, U.S. foreign policy is expected to become even more personality-driven. Initiatives such as expanding the Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries, and securing Saudi Arabia’s accession to these agreements will likely hinge on Trump’s personal relationships with regional leaders. Since Iranian officials, at times, had better relations with Republicans, the likelihood of Iran’s inclination to reach a deal with Trump becomes stronger.
The relationship between the United States and Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has been characterized by hostility, with both sides, at best, managing to control tensions. Both have concluded that failing to do so would be too costly. This is particularly important for someone like Trump, who has stated that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a priority for him. From Iran’s perspective, too, there appear to be logical reasons for seeking an agreement. The government under President Masoud Pezeshkian has adopted a more flexible approach, and the regional security situation, along with economic sanctions, has made efforts to reach an agreement more serious.
Tehran is concerned that any agreement may not be as stable as previous ones. However, given the election of Trump-supporting majorities in Congress, any accord negotiated by the Trump administration is likely to face less opposition within the U.S. political structure. However, Israel’s unwillingness to reach any deal with Iran, coupled with Trump’s previous order to kill an Iranian general, represent major obstacles to a potential agreement. It remains to be seen what path the parties will ultimately take to manage these tensions.
In summary, Trump’s second term could bring a more targeted and pragmatic approach to the Middle East, leveraging his alignment with the region’s authoritarian political culture to advance U.S. interests.
Ebrahim Meraji is director of the Department of US-Middle East Studies at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies (CMESS) and director of the U.S. Studies Group at the Iranian Association of West Asian Studies (IAWAS).
Recent & Related